In the sample adventure and in one of the art pieces, it seems to suggest that ruining a hand will prevent a mage from doing magic. However, nothing in the text suggests this.

What role do a mage's hands play in casting magic? Is this idea of crushing the hand true or is it a common superstition? Are all kinds of magic effected, or just some?

Just curious about this potentially important detail.

Been watching a lot of Dr Who recently and I would say that ruining a mage's hand would affect their ability to wield magic if it would enhance your story to do so. This answer has been generated by explaining a lot of the "why can he/they do that?" questions that Who generates from my kids. If they want the long answer based on (too many) years of watching Who, they get it. But it basically boils down to "because it's what the story needs them to do."

I'm turning into less of a gamer and more of a storyteller as I grow older and things work because they're right for the story.

Of course, you could say that a mage is not capable of manipulating the Weave of magic if they can't work their fingers. This could explain why they can't work magic if they've got their hands tied. I'd base it on the type of mage the character is playing - ask them to describe their character casting a spell. If they just put a finger to their forehead and think the spell, then no. Wrecking their hands might slow them down for a little while simply due to the pain and discomfort distracting them but they'll be back in the game, magically speaking, PDQ. However, if the description involves elaborate, intricate, gestures then they're going to have to re-learn everything about turning the spells in their head into magical reality.

Not an official answer, just one based on the needs of the story.

What I'm asking here is what the game designers intended when they included those bits in the book.

I wasn't looking for advice on how to be a GM or Storyteller. I already know how to do those.



Yep I could say that. But I wasn't asking me. I'm looking for an official answer here. In lieu of an official answer, I'll pick whatever I think is best. But I am interested in what the designers had in mind, as the fact that it comes up twice in the rulebook (artwork and in the sample adventure) but is never once mentioned in the section on magic suggests an oversight of some kind. I just wanted clarification on that point.

Many apologies. Your original post did not make it clear you were looking for input specifically from the designers.

It's very common in these boards for questions to be raised in the interests of discussion (hence the title of this section ). There's also a level of "fuzziness" to the rules that I believe the designers put into the system on purpose to make it easier for a GM to chart his own course, so to speak.

If you'll be a bit patient, I'm sure Matt, Jamie or Stephen will pop in with their thoughts on the matter anon.

Personally, I think that without hands, the magic-user cannot cast spells. With one hand it's still possible, but without both, they lose the ability in it's entirety. I saw the artwork and the sample adventure as proof of this particular ruling, but an official answer would be nice to have.

I'm fine if people want to speculate about that aspect of the setting. But as this is "Setting Discussion" not "Rules Discussion" I'm not terribly interested in discussing the rules around it or how to best adjudicate it. I'm just interested in this aspect of the setting, as it's hinted at but never directly commented on.

Also, I think it's pretty obvious and goes without saying that I can do whatever I think is best for my game/story. Even if I hadn't known that, pretty much every roleplaying book expressly belabors that point. I can replace "Ascondia" with "Tevinter" or "Bel Turath" or "Blackmoor" if I wanted, too. That really doesn't answer any questions about this setting, however.

It's the setting I wish to discuss which is why I posted here. If you have insights on what you think was intended by those bits in the setting book, go ahead and speculate. But I'll forgo the storytelling 101, thank you, as while it's technically correct it's imminently unhelpful.

Yes, that's exactly where I'm coming from here. The artwork and sample adventure heavily imply that hands are needed for spellcasting. However, in the sample adventure the "suspected mage" had only one hand ruined. If spellcasting is possible with only one hand, why only ruin one?

Well, in the spirit of discussion, I would point out that your basing your supposition on one incident mentioned in the sample adventure and an illustration that appears to refer to said incident.

The fact that the villagers chose to punish the "magic-user" by damaging his hand does not necessarily mean that doing so is an effective action. Realize that this is a post-apocalyptic world, full of fear and misinformation. The villagers could very likely have an erroneous perception of how magic works. As an analogy, consider how accurate a description of quantum mechanics you'd get by interviewing the inhabitants of a small West Virginia town (no disparaging of WV natives intended).

The point is that the game system may not have delineated this concept merely because it's not a true part of the rules mechanics but a literary plot device, so demanding that the designers make a ruling may be a bit misdirected. You could simply accept it as flavor text and make your own decision for your games.

Which is more or less what other folks were saying.

In the very first post, I posited this question:

"Is this idea of crushing the hand true or is it a common superstition?"

So yes, I am very aware that it could just be a superstition (a common or uncommon one for that matter, my original word choice might have been too limiting). In fact, that is the heart of my question: is this a superstition or is this a fact of the game setting? or was it a fact in the Before and they're just guessing it works now in the After?



Once again, I am not looking for a game system ruling. I cannot make this clear enough. I do not care for any mechanics or rules answers about this. I am looking for a setting answer. The suspected mage's hand being black and gangrenous is described in detail, but no further exposition about the hand is given, which either implies that we, the readers, should already know why this happened or it was an oversight when it was written. We can infer it has something to do with the accusation of magery, but that's never explicitly stated. The fact they went so far as to illustrate this "minor" detail in the magic chapter of the book suggests to me we should have more information here than the expository text suggests.

Let me rephrase the question: "why, exactly, from an in-game setting perspective, did the villagers crush the hand of a suspected magic user? Was this from a belief that a ruined hand would prohibit the use of magic, and is this known or believed to be an efficacious means of neutralizing spellcasting in Scondera?"



Obviously. However, I can do that without needing to post a question in a forum, so again, that's not a useful response. If the only answers worth posting are "do whatever you want" that renders the entire point of a discussion forum moot, doesn't it?

Short version: I'm looking for answers, not permission.

My apologies for trying to be helpful. I'll make sure it doesn't happen in one of your threads again.

Jeez, you try to help someone...

And I apologize for again misinterpreting the intent of your post.

I guess I'll fall back to my previous statement and suggest patience while waiting for what you consider an official response.

I guess we never explicitely put it in the rules, but at least one hand is necessary to cast.

I wouldn't allow casting if both hands were maimed, the caster is tied up, etc...

The Inconspicuous Casting talent allows a caster to a spell without being noticed by most people. If you read the section under normal, it says: "Casting cannot be done without being noticed." When we wrote this, the thought in our mind was that you could with much more subtle movements and speech.

Hope this helps...